As long as the corrupt are in positions in power society cannot move forward and end the corruption, because those in power and who are corrupt will stand in the way of such reforms.

It's mind boggling therefore that the EU has such expectations considering they are leaving the corrupt in positions of power in states that want to join the EU.

While they cannot force them to leave office, they certainly can act as one and make life extremely difficult for the corrupt Romanian officials using legal tactics to slow down the process by stripping them of EU protection and banning them personally from representing Romania at the EU.

If the EU is unable to do this currently then it should pass such minor reforms and end the abuse it suffers at the hands of the corrupt who use its laws as a shelter from the laws of Europe.

Some intrepid readers might like know the conditions of labour on an infrastructure project in Transylvania, funded to the tune of about forty million euros by the EU and something under half that by Romania. Its matter was the reconstruction of a long stretch of road. I noted the estimated length A quick calculation of the monthly costs came in at about 1 million euros. On the day that my best friend drove me down the full length of this road improvement project, I saw 21 workmen, of whom perhaps four were working. The average salary for a Romanian manual labour is a few hundred euros.

I fully agree with @driftout’s comment - it is absolutely necessary that economic criminality is prosecuted by courts of another member country to achieve independence and prevent political (or other lobbyists’) pressures. This should be amended by EU treaties.

The latest example is from today when Swiss justice has just confirmed prosecution of managers of Czech coal mining company that fraudulently privatized the company (from money of the company itself) tunneled money from the company via Swiss accounts. Local justice was not able to do anything with it, Swiss authorities initiated their own investigation which in several years resulted in formal charges of money laundering (unfortunately, it looks that neither the Czech Republic nor Belgium will the criminals).

A notable fact about one of the above mentioned managers-fraudsters (picture Mr. Koláček) was that he was not able to withstand the change that newly acquired billions brought to his life and became a Buddhist monk looking for balance in his life (similar stories can be found of investment bankers, etc.).

Thus, one way to try to tackle the corruption and frauds in post-communist societies, where most people were materially deprived for long time and assume that suddenly acquired fraudulent bonanza will make them happy, is to persuade them (e.g. a campaign) that this assumption is wrong and the money will rather ruin their lives than make them happy.

Corruption in Romania can not be liquidated because of the mentality. This is typical of underdeveloped countries and developing ones. Corruption is being seeded into the root competition and public interest. But it is appalling that in developing countries which suffer the most, those who, because almost empty wallets. Corruption affects policymakers more that it does the lower class people. Big companies hire experts to handle the bureaucratic system and obscure ways of payment. Policymakers are tied to both sides of the problem.

very dissapointed on TE, no serios report on Romania in this paper, ever...and who the hell is Andrea Pora? you have all what it takes to talk to some serious people and you find the most loyal and blind president's court poet. I wasted time to read this

I'm currently consulting for a Romanian service company who is contracted to a large American multinational company to complete a project. The American company has insisted on implementing rigorous anti-corruption procedures with checks and balances.

We however worked for almost two months without a signed contract, seemingly a loophole to allow the multinational to compete in the corrupt local business environment and not breech their operational rules. Once all the groundwork was laid by the local company, in the way they had to, the contract was signed and everything from that point was done according to the book.

The point is, that a lot of it is window dressing and that unfortunately, one cannot do business effectively in Romania if it'd done by the book. And, after 7 years all I see is that the game is getting more sophisticated, not cleaner.

This article is far too shy. By now it's perfectly clear that Romania (and numerous other countries with a similar mindset) can not tackle corruption on their own and will never seriously attempt to do it. These investigations into magistrates and public officials are just a ridiculous show, 99% of them will end with the accused being cleared or at the very best be given suspended sentences.

As a first small step towards actually reducing corruption, Romania (and again, the many other countries with the same problem ) should be forced to accept reliable foreign judges in all corruption cases involving local magistrates or politicians.

@Dian Cecht
„Is it too late to ask the Austrians and Hungarians to come back in and impose some order. It sounds utterly ungovernable.”

The Hungarian Party was part of the Romanian government for the last 3 years and took part in romanian governments 15 years out of the last 21 years. They have always voted against laws disclosing the wealth of politicians on the grounds that were exposing themselves to burglars(!) and they voted against organizations tackling corruption. In the areas they control, hungarian politicians have amassed huge fortunes through the very same corruption mechanisms. Any questions on legality were dismissed as ethnically charged. The counties they conrtol are below the national average, poorer than many romanian counties.
The Hungarian Party was a great dissapointment for all of us who thought hungarian politicians were different.

The Economist has a very good intention here, but they cannot refrain (maybe out of stuppidity? or incompetence? Currently not-so-large size of the Romanian market for British goods and "services"?) from drawing everything in a contempt key, one that makes poor souls like Dian Ceht to shit in its own pants.

Result: we will continue to read TE for a while, but without any major respect, and gradually we will shift to more professional press. These post-imperial cultures like UK and France tend to drawn in their own cultural bubble. France is already irrelevant. UK is next, they only linger a bit because of the international use English. Which makes them feel important ... Anyway, this is not enough, the English language does not belong to UK anymore, and a cultural bubble remains a cultural bubble. Commercial exhanges is not communication, especially when the object of the trade are "services". And the lack of respect to others returns back tenfold.

I am far from contesting the need for a stricter enforcement of the law in Romania and a cleaner justice system. At the same time I find the Economist articles on Romania rather biased. I noticed that no serious economical analysis was made by this (generally) reputable publication on the Romanian economy in the last year. The closure of the Nokia factory (not an insignificant event for the evolution of the whole European economy as a whole) did not get even a foot note. What we get is the usual garbage of a poorly informed correspondent, with little journalistic skills.
Unfortunately the corrupt judges in Romania are also stupid and lack any common sense and secrecy. I know a case someone from an English speaking country that was puzzled when his lawyer (in a traffic infringement offence) did not show up in the first two trials. He was about to fire his lawyer when he was disclosed a small detail: at the third term the judge will be a close friend of the lawyer. Off course he kept his lawyer.

Corruption is present in UK and most English speaking countries. I am not sure how to qualify a country where we have state sponsored bribery (as the case of BAE to Saudi Arabia) and the British justice system refuse to act on it in spite of international pressure. I am still waiting to see The Economist actively campaigning for prosecting this case. Or The Economist campaigning against a full trial of Rupert Murdoch.
Any bets on this?

I do not agree that taking on the judges is only coming as a result of pressure from European Union or becuase Romania has difficulties in joining Schengen.

The truth is that good parts of the society have pushed relentlesly over the last 22 years for more economic freedom, for more personal liberties, for more freedom of speech, for more democracy and for better and independent institutions.

We know how difficult is to change not only judges but also the police, the doctors, the other public sector employees (last week was arrested Silviu Bian, the head of the national employment agency from collecting a percentage from the bribes the employees of this agency were collecting; also some 9 months ago around 200 custom officials have been arrested for bribery).

This behaviour is projected to companies who prefer to pay bribes, is projected to almost every Romanian who pay bribes every day (even pregnant women pay bribes to nurses in maternity wards to have their bed-sheets changed).

It is a struggle that started 22 years ago but still is difficult to change esepcially when there are so many vested interests in the judiciary, police, education or health systems. The solution we are working on is less state involvment as the alternative would be to put most of the country behind bars (in my example both the nurse in the maternity ward but the pregnant mother should end up in prison).

Corruption has always been an issue in Romania, true, although this article feels a little bit one sided. My feeling (from admitedly, infrequent visits) is that it's getting better, in the sense that at least now they are investigating those accused of corruption (including people like supreme court judges, who in the past had nothing to fear).

Also, I did not get where you got your numbers from. Most foreign commercial banks predict a growth of 1.5-2% this year and 2-3% for next year (depending crucially, on the situation with Greece, of course). Unsurprisingly, austerity measures have been, and will be more (in fact, they were probably implemented stricter in Romania than in other places). But still Romania debt/GDP ratio is only 34% (with a current debt of just above 3%), compared to around 70-80% in most of Europe (including the UK, Germany, France etc). That would point out to less [comparative] tightening in the future - although the uncertain situation with the euro makes anything hard to predict. Anyway, perhaps, a bit more in depth discussion of actual figures from the Economist would be good.